Is torture necessary?

[Drummerstixz]

With a all the recent news about how America shouldn't/should have tortured our enemies and the backlash we have received, I was wondering what everyone thought of this issue? Is it acceptable to use torture to get information no matter how horrible it sounds, or should we punish the people that OKed the use of it. I for one think we should use whatever means necessary to win the war. Your thoughts?

 

[Valkyira]

I agree, Im actually English but i believe that our government should do whatever is necessary to get important information. Bare in mind, that the people who are being tortured,may have done worse then that

 

[Datalord]

Noone has been waterboarded in 5 years, who cares?

 

[Harbinger_]

Depends on the issue and depends on the severity. It also depends if the person is suspect or already proven guilty. The already proven guilty cannot be proven via said torture.

 

[PAGEToap44]

It gets results I suppose.

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

I don't see torture as a reliable way of gathering information. Any idiot can lie to save their own skin, so there is no way to be sure that any info gathered is truthfull, accurate or valid.
Torture also cheapens any ideas that it is used to protect. No-one can honestly say they are fighting for freedom, human rights etc if they are actively abusing someone in this way. It's just hypocritical to the point of nonsense.

 

[deleted_by_strongbad]

No country that pretends to be the world's moral authority should ever practice torture under any circumstances and should they the people who approved/suggested said ideas should be at minimum court martialed. In this situation we definitely should not have tortured since our victory conditions are too vague to claim that the torture actually helped and then with the point that our revised purpose for going to war was to deter terrorists and stop human rights violations. The torture only encourages more terrorists, or in their opinion freedom fighters, and is a handful of human rights violations so the torture actually declares our mission a failure.

 

[Ironic]

Torture is flawed for the very reason that it works.
For instance:
Justification=TORTURE IS NECESSARY IN THAT AFTER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF PAIN, THE INDIVIDUAL(s) WILL REVEAL THE INFORMATION TO END THE PAIN(pain being contextual here).

Reality=The individual being tortured will do/say whatever it takes to make the pain stop.

By this obvious flaw in logic when it comes to gathering reliable "results" after torture, the point on whether torture is "right" is moot. We should NOT torture, because the best way to defeat an enemy that hates you, is to give them no reason to hate.

*Edit* Damnit, i was gonna be first post when i wrote this >.<

 

[ssgt splatter]

depending on the situation, yes it is neccesary

 

[PizzaTheHutt]

Seeing as how we have no reason to be in either place and any information that we could have possibly gotten from a shell shocked Iraqi we already have, torture is pointless and stupid in such a silly "war". Way i see it America just needed something to make up for 9/11 and bush delivered in a borderline idiotic matter.

 

[Internet Kraken]

You'd have to torture me before I share my opinion on this thread.

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

Never.

 

[Internet Kraken]

Way i see it America just needed something to make up for 9/11 and bush delivered in a borderline idiotic matter.

That most of the country agreed with at the time.

Just saying.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

Merits repeating, after you've shoved bamboo shoots in someone's fingers or dropped them in a pool while they're tied up on a board, they're going to gibber anything at you. So for confessions I'd say it's mostly a bust, if you haven't got evidence outside of that it's a waste of time.

Which is where the whole Geneva Convention problem comes in. The logic behind banning torture is that almost a century ago a bunch of countries got together and agreed that since torture just produced gibberish, we might as well all agree to not do it. And wouldn't you know it, we broke that treaty for an event that we can only prove was going to happen because the guy we just tortured said it was.

Was he just babbling crap so they would stop torturing him or did the CIA actually save thousands of lives? Who knows. That's why they banned torture in the first place.

 

[waspbr]

No.
Regardless of the effectiveness of torture, it is immoral, regardless of who the prisoner is.
torture does not garantee the safety of anyone, the japanese tortured prisoners during WWII and that didn't do them any good.
the price of being a civilized and moral society is not to torture.

 

[razer17]

I agree, Im actually English but i believe that our government should do whatever is necessary to get important information. Bare in mind, that the people who are being tortured,may have done worse then that

and what if you torture someone thats innocent. people will eventually give in and say anything even if they hadn't done it.
torture doesn't work in illicing correct information. it could work as a decent punishment for murderers and paedophiles and the like.

 

[fix-the-spade]

It gets results I suppose.

Yes it does, it gathers incorrect information and serves as a ready made recruiting poster for every terrorist organisation on the planet.

The problem with torture is that a tortured man tells you everything you want to hear, not because it's true, a lie or even his beliefs, he tells you it because it will make you to stop.

It's never justified and it certainly doesn't work.

 

[Thegoodfriar]

Merits repeating, after you've shoved bamboo shoots in someone's fingers or dropped them in a pool while they're tied up on a board, they're going to gibber anything at you. So for confessions I'd say it's mostly a bust, if you haven't got evidence outside of that it's a waste of time.

Which is where the whole Geneva Convention problem comes in. The logic behind banning torture is that almost a century ago a bunch of countries got together and agreed that since torture just produced gibberish, we might as well all agree to not do it. And wouldn't you know it, we broke that treaty for an event that we can only prove was going to happen because the guy we just tortured said it was.

Was he just babbling crap so they would stop torturing him or did the CIA actually save thousands of lives? Who knows. That's why they banned torture in the first place.

Very well put, also at the moment U.S. foreign relations is still in a time of recovery. So staying within global social norms is a recommended course of action.

 

[jasoncyrus]

I'd quite like to torture anyone who breaks the law, reguardless of crime. That'll certainly put the fear back into criminals. Won't take drugs if the punishment is having your arm hacked off. Wouldn't murder if the penalty was being left to the crows in a cage to be eaten alive. Wouldn't steal if the punishment was having all your fingers smashed with a hammer.

Torture isn't about gathering information or persuading people. It's about showing your enemies just how bad an idea it is to mess with you. It's not a method, its a CONSEQUENCE.

 

[Valkyira]

I agree, Im actually English but i believe that our government should do whatever is necessary to get important information. Bare in mind, that the people who are being tortured,may have done worse then that

and what if you torture someone thats innocent. people will eventually give in and say anything even if they hadn't done it.
torture doesn't work in illicing correct information. it could work as a decent punishment for murderers and paedophiles and the like.

I especially said MAY so no-one got the wrong idea